https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780912 AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's finding that confiscation under s.3(d) FEMA could not be sustained because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action, so the seized amount (Rs. 89,70,000) was not transmitted. The tribunal found no error in refusing confiscation, declined to disturb penalties of Rs.25,00,000 each, and directed the respondent to adjust the withheld Rs.89,70,000 toward those amounts and refund the balance to the appellants, noting the amount had been improperly withheld for about 20 years. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780912 AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's finding that confiscation under s.3(d) FEMA could not be sustained because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action, so the seized amount (Rs. 89,70,000) was not transmitted. The tribunal found no error in refusing confiscation, declined to disturb penalties of Rs.25,00,000 each, and directed the respondent to adjust the withheld Rs.89,70,000 toward those amounts and refund the balance to the appellants, noting the amount had been improperly withheld for about 20 years. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780912